Skip to content
Helmer Rabild Tuw for Charities at a glance

· Private foundation

Helmer Rabild Tuw for Charities

Its FY2025 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.

$55k
Granted FY2025still arriving
3
Grants FY2025still arriving
2
States reached
$25k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
01What it funds
0196% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2025.

Education$119kPhilanthropy$104kHealth$94kCommunity Improvement$28kHuman Services$25kFood & Nutrition$17kYouth Development$15kReligion$10kOther$0
02FY2025 · 3 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

By grant size · FY2025

  • Under $10k1 grant · $5k
  • $10k–50k2 grants · $50k
$25,000
Median grant
2
States reached
$1.1M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
YOUNG WOMENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION$25,206
TITUSVILLE AREA HOSPITAL$25,000
TITUSVILLE ALUMNI ASSOCIATION$4,807
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Its human-services grants (FY19–25, $36k) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 14%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 14%YOUNG WOMENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION: $25k → 16%LOVE IN THE NAME OF CHRIST: $7k → 14%LOVE IN THE NAME OF CHRIST: $3k → 14%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

71%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$315k · 6 repeat orgs$129k to everyone else

Grantees it renews have grown median revenue +72% since the first grant, against +14% for those funded once.

6 repeat relationships: 1 still active in FY2025, 5 since wound down; 2 grantees were first funded in FY2025 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

6
6

Total granted

$315k
$79k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+72%
+14%

Still filing today

67%
33%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2025, 9% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $50k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’20’21’22’23’24’25
EducationHuman ServicesPhilanthropyHealthOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • UW
    United Way of the Titusville Region
    3× · 2020–2024 · $104k · revenue +1%
  • TA
    Titusville Alumni Association
    5× · 2017–2025 · $83k · revenue +72%
  • TR
    TITUSVILLE REGIONAL LITERACY COUNCIL
    2× · 2020–2022 · $28k · revenue +135%

Funded once

  • IG
    Individual grant recipient
    one grant, 2021 · $30k
  • AC
    ASSOCIATED CHARITIES OF TITUSVILLE
    one grant, 2023 · $17k · revenue +14%
  • YM
    YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION
    one grant, 2023 · $15k
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Titusville Community Development Services Inc

To promote economic development in the Titusville, Pennsylvania geographic area.

Community Improvement
2
Titusville Area Senior Citizens Cor

The mission of the titusville area senior citizens corporation is to assure that older adults remain active, independent, healthy, and involved in the community.

Human Services
3
Tioga United Way Inc

Efficiently allocate and organize donations to local charitable organizations.

Philanthropy
4
Taylor Community Library Association

Public lending library

—
5
Tilton Fund Inc

Support for tilton library and its expansion project.

Arts & Culture
6
Tunica County Literacy Council Inc

The tunica county literacy council, inc. shut down it's operations at december 31, 2020 and offered no services during 2021.

—
7
Young Womens Christian Association

Eliminating racism and empowering women.

—
8
Tiltonsville Volunteer Fire Department

None

Public Safety & Disaster
9
Tpl Foundation Inc

To provide funding for the tuscaloosa public library.

Education
10
Tidioute Library Association Inc

To provide library servies to the tidioute area

Education
11
Tiverton Library Foundation Inc

To secure contributions to help support the operational and capital needs of the tiverton public library.

Education
12
Ywca Tulsa Inc

Ywca is dedicated to eliminating racism, empowering women and promoting peace, justice, freedom, and dignity for all.

Human Services
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Titusville Regional Literacy Council; the most unlike its peers is Love in the Name of Christ. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

8 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 8 of the 14 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
3
Early backer (in before they grew)
8/8
Grantees still filing
5/8
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

TITUSVILLE AREA HEALTH CENTER INC: $68,977 · OtherTITUSVILLE AREA HEALTH CENTER INCIndividual grant recipient: $30,000 · OtherIndividual grant recipientTITUSVILLE AREA SR CITIZENS C: $20,712 · OtherTITUSVILLE AREA SR CITIZENS CASSOCIATED CHARITIES OF TITUSVILLE: $16,512 · OtherASSOCIATED CHARITIES OF TITUSVILLEYOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION: $15,000 · OtherYOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATIONBENSON MEMORIAL LIBRARY: $8,176 · OtherOil Region Alliance of Business Industry: $7,072 · Other+1 more: $2,431 · OtherTitusville Alumni Association: $83,048 · EducationTitusville Alumni Associatio…TITUSVILLE REGIONAL LITERACY COUNCIL: $28,200 · EducationTITUSVILLE REGIONAL LITERACY…United Way of the Titusville Region: $104,019 · PhilanthropyUnited Way of the Titusvil…YOUNG WOMENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF SAN ANTONIO: $25,206 · Human ServicesYOUNG WOM…LOVE IN THE NAME OF CHRIST: $10,455 · Human ServicesLOVE IN T…TITUSVILLE AREA HOSPITAL: $25,000 · Health
Other$168,880Education$111,248Philanthropy$104,019Human Services$35,661Health$25,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetUnited Way of the Titusville Region: $104,019 over 3y, 12% of budgetTitusville Alumni Association: $83,048 over 5y, 20% of budgetTITUSVILLE REGIONAL LITERACY COUNCIL: $28,200 over 2y, 11% of budgetYOUNG WOMENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF SAN ANTONIO: $25,206 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetTITUSVILLE AREA HOSPITAL: $25,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetASSOCIATED CHARITIES OF TITUSVILLE: $16,512 over 1y, 6.3% of budgetLOVE IN THE NAME OF CHRIST: $10,455 over 2y, 6.8% of budgetBENSON MEMORIAL LIBRARY: $8,176 over 1y, 1.3% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Harold D Jones for Ch…Fidelity Investments …Amazonsmile Foundation
Harold D Jones for CharitiesPA17.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 2 of 2Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Harold D Jones for Charities · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund · Amazonsmile Foundation

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Helmer Rabild Tuw for Charities funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Helmer Rabild Tuw for Charities. Bigger dots raise more.

2023
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%4%8%15%funder's share of their income ↑0%1%3%4%5%share of the org’s income from government →
    no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
    0get no government money at all
    4report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
    0rely on government for over half their income
    ⤢ axis zoomed · 0–5%
    typical government reliance, FY20–25
    How this is measured
    Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.

    On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 14 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

    How this is measured
    Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

    Generated from the IRS Form 990-PF e-file return for fiscal year 2025, released 2025. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

    Source object · view filing

    Play a game based on Helmer Rabild Tuw for Charities’ filings →

    More from the funding graph

    The unnamed billions
    grants reported with no recipient in the public record
    The regranting layer
    51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
    The DAF merry-go-round
    $9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
    The endowment market
    who holds foundation money, and what just moved
    The camps
    funders cluster by geography, not ideology
    By state
    where grant money is based, and what stays home